svirsky@ttidcb.UUCP (William Svirsky) (01/04/86)
<choke on it!>
I have a few questions concerning copyright laws. If I write my
own version of a best-selling program that looks and acts
exactly as the original, but I give mine away for free, can I
be sued? If I write a program that is based on the information
in a book, a database program for example, and use the format
from the book exactly even to calling fields by the same name,
but give it away free, can I be sued? Lastly, if I write a
game program using the plot, place, and characters from a book,
and again give it away free, can I be sued? If the answer to
any of the above is yes, what would I have to do in order not
to infringe on the copyright? Any help on this would be
appreciated. Send me mail and I'll summarize to the net.
Thanks.
--
Bill Svirsky
Citicorp/TTI
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90405 Work phone: 213-450-9111 x2597
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcb!svirskycharli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (01/08/86)
I tried to mail this to Bill Svirsky, but the mailer here didn't like his address. I'll admit right away that I'm not a lawyer. I am a writer, though, and as copyright affects my bread and butter, I have made it a point to learn about it. >If I write my >own version of a best-selling program that looks and acts >exactly as the original, but I give mine away for free, can I >be sued? I'd almost guarantee that you would be. When you get to court, you might try to argue that, since the code is different, your product isn't really a copy. I don't know how well that would hold up. I would expect that you would lose, and owe the owner of the copyright, at a minimum, the fair market value of all the look-alikes you gave away. You'd also likely be enjoined from distributing any more. The fact that you gave them away instead of selling them would be irrelevant. >If I write a program that is based on the information >in a book, a database program for example, and use the format >from the book exactly even to calling fields by the same name, >but give it away free, can I be sued? Yes. If you steal their example, they can sue you for it. Again, it doesn't matter whether you sell their example or give it away. It wasn't yours to start with. >Lastly, if I write a >game program using the plot, place, and characters from a book, >and again give it away free, can I be sued? Yes. >If the answer to >any of the above is yes, what would I have to do in order not >to infringe on the copyright? Get the author's permission. Sometimes it can be had for free, just for asking. Sometimes it can't be had at all. Sometimes you can get it if you're willing to pay for it. If you're really concerned about it, consult a lawyer. regards, Charli
garry@lasspvax.UUCP (Garry Wiegand) (01/11/86)
In a recent article charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) wrote: >I'll admit right away that I'm not a lawyer. I am a writer, though,... > >- Words of Bill Svirsky ->If I write my >>own version of a best-selling program that looks and acts >>exactly as the original, but I give mine away for free, can I >>be sued? > >I'd almost guarantee that you would be. When you get to court, you... I agree, you probably would be. But that ain't the way the system is supposed to work. A "copyright" is the right to control what copies (or elementary translations) of a sequence of words, a picture, or a sequence of bits (as in a ROM) are made, and by who. Copying words IS SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT than copying *ideas*, including the idea of what a computer program *does* when inserted into the appropriate hardware. A sequence of algorithmic actions (ie, a "method of production", in Patent terms) does *not* qualify as a "sequence of words, a picture, or a sequence of bits". Please note that the universe of ideas contains, and is much larger than, the universe of words. Our public policy is that it is the Patent Office which is to regulate and restrict the flow of ideas, and that many many qualifications will be needed before such a restriction can be granted unto you. Why does this simple idea cause so much confusion on the net? (I.e., "how many lawyers and vice presidents/finance can dance on the head of a pin?") I admit the rules deserve to be spelled out more clearly, and anti- terrorist methods invoked, so that we don't have to run for fear of the unfair exercise of the law and the courtroom. garry wiegand garry@lasspvax.tn.cornell.edu Flying Moose Software et al [By my definition, any *picture on a terminal screen* is fair game for copyrighting. Don't know that anyone's tried it yet...]
macrakis@harvard.UUCP (Stavros Macrakis) (01/14/86)
I'm afraid that a rather over-simplified notion of copyright protection is going around: > >>... my own version of a best-selling program that looks and > >>acts exactly as the original... > >I'd almost guarantee that you would be. When you get to court, you... > I agree, you probably would be. But that ain't the way the system is > supposed to work. A "copyright" is the right to control what copies > [are made] of a sequence of words, a picture, or a sequence of bits... > > Copying words IS SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT than copying *ideas*, > including the idea of what a computer program *does* .... This is not true. Copyright covers much more than the `bits'. For instance, copyright covers the essential plot elements of a story and the characters in a story. If you tried to put together a comic book character called, say, Ultraman, who came from a distant planet, grew up in a small town, had super-human powers, took on a secret identity as a reporter, and was weakened by minerals from his home planet--in other words, was a recognizable imitation of Superman--the copyright owner could sue to protect its character under copyright laws. Similarly, if you took a best-selling novel and rewrote it top to bottom but with the same characteristic and identifiable sequence of events, you would be violating copyright. Even mathematical tables can be copyrighted. Of course, it is very hard to prove that tables have been copied (rather than being generated independently), but it can be done by, for instance, misrounding. A similar technique is used for detecting illicit copies of mailing lists--spurious addresses are added. (After all, the individual addresses surely can't be copyrighted, just the collection.) > the Patent Office ... regulate[s] and restrict[s] the flow of ideas, > and that many many qualifications will be needed before such a > restriction can be granted unto [unto??] you. Far from regulating the flow of ideas, patents require their publication. It is their instantiation in operating devices that is protected. > [By my definition, any *picture on a terminal screen* is fair game > for copyrighting. Don't know that anyone's tried it yet...] This has been done, actually. In fact, I believe the first court case trying to protect a video game depended on copyrighting what came up on the screen. Counter-argument: each time you play it's different. Answer: even if that is a convincing argument (analogy with the case of Superman shows that won't wash), the attract mode display is the same each time. The upshot of all of this is that copyright protects much more than the sequence of bytes, and that indeed it protects a substantial amount of what could be called the `ideas' embodied in a text. Note, too, that there are other kinds of protection beside copyright for imitating another program. Just as you don't need to trademark your (distinctive) grocery store name (say, Flying Bread Company) to protect yourself from a competitor opening a store with the same name across the street, you have some protection even without copyright/patent/trademark. I believe this is called `unfair competition' under various state laws. Note that all of this is simplified and that I am not a lawyer. -s
ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/15/86)
> This is not true. Copyright covers much more than the `bits'. For > instance, copyright covers the essential plot elements of a story and > the characters in a story. If you tried to put together a comic book > character called, say, Ultraman, who came from a distant planet, grew > up in a small town, had super-human powers, took on a secret identity > as a reporter, and was weakened by minerals from his home planet--in > other words, was a recognizable imitation of Superman--the copyright > owner could sue to protect its character under copyright laws. WRONG, wrong, wrong. The plot is not covered, nor is the "idea" behind a copyrighted work. What is protected is derivative works. What you have described is not a derivative work, most certainly because I could develop a completely original work based on those premises without even seeing any copyright materials. > > Similarly, if you took a best-selling novel and rewrote it top to > bottom but with the same characteristic and identifiable sequence of > events, you would be violating copyright. > Closer, this actually is developing a derivative work by just massaging what's in the present work. > Note that all of this is simplified and that I am not a lawyer. > Obviously.
ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/15/86)
> I have a few questions concerning copyright laws. If I write my > own version of a best-selling program that looks and acts > exactly as the original, but I give mine away for free, can I > be sued? Provided that the sole protection of the program was copyright, you can develop a similar program from specification without using the original source materials and it is yours. It's done all the time. Watch out however for this VISUAL COPYRIGHT principle. If the program does any screen oriented graphics, the appearance of those displays themselves (such as the PACMAN board or the MACINTOSH menu/window system) be covered by copyright. > If I write a program that is based on the information > in a book, a database program for example, and use the format > from the book exactly even to calling fields by the same name, > but give it away free, can I be sued? Yes. You were not give permission to copy the respective fields from the book into your program.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (01/24/86)
> > > >- Words of Bill Svirsky ->If I write my > >>own version of a best-selling program that looks and acts > >>exactly as the original, but I give mine away for free, can I > >>be sued? > > > >I'd almost guarantee that you would be. When you get to court, you... > > A "copyright" is the right to control what copies > (or elementary translations) of a sequence of words, a picture, or a > sequence of bits (as in a ROM) are made, and by who. > > A sequence of algorithmic actions (ie, > a "method of production", in Patent terms) does *not* qualify as a > "sequence of words, a picture, or a sequence of bits". > > Why does this simple idea cause so much confusion on the net? > > garry wiegand One of the reasons that people are so confused about copyright law is that so much misinformation is spread about it. One bit of misinformation that keeps being repeated is that copyright only covers duplication of sequences of words, or pictures, or bits, or other physical manifestations of an idea. A copyright protects the expression of an idea. The user interface of a program (the layout of the screens, the sequences of operations that the user is permitted to do, the error messages, the use of function keys, etc.) is an expression of an idea. It especially is not a "sequence of algorithmic actions", since the same user interface could be programmed many different ways. The main exception comes from Baker vs. Selden, in which the court ruled that a copyrighted work describing a system or process may not be protected if it would prevent others from using the system; that would make the copyright like a patent. (The case involved a book describing a bookkeeping system. The book contained a page showing a form for use with the system. The court ruled that the only way one could use this system was to copy the form, and ruled in favor of the defendant on the grounds that to do otherwise was to give the author the equivalent of a long-term patent on the system.) Every program I've seen that does anything substantial could be redesigned to fulfill the same purpose without copying the exact user interface, so I doubt that Baker vs. Selden is relevant. To learn about copyright law, I recommend "The Copyright Book" by William S. Strong (The MIT Press). Strong is a copyright lawyer, so he knows what he's talking about. He's a good writer who manages to make a difficult topic interesting and relatively easy. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff